Why do people from privileged class backgrounds often misidentify their origins as working class?

[smokedout]

I think we do people down with the anticipation that people can't or won't deal with ideas like "relation to capital" or whatever. Recent years have shown us that plenty of people have displayed an appetite to deploy rapidly learnt perspectives on stuff like European constitutional and trade laws, epedimiology, climate science and God knows how many other "difficult" or "academic" fields. We might be able to question the accuracy or depth of this new-found expertise, but the idea that people can't or won't engage with complex stuff has surely been shown to false?

I agree, it's patronising to say the least that people can't understand it. But I wonder if the problem is more that the analysis, whilst correct, no longer maps onto a lot of people's daily lived experiences. There are vast economic cleavages within the class, probably more than ever so. The life of someone on £80k a year who owns their own home is unimaginably different to the life of a tenant claiming benefits or on the minimim wage. And there hasn't really been much in the way of solidarity flowing downwards from the more economically privileged members of the working class - quite the opposite at times in fact - and this to some extent is understandable. There are competing economic interests that are more than trivial. If action was taken to seriously address the housing crisis for example, that would likely lower house prices, potentially plunging people into negative equity. For those whose home is paid off that's the money they plan to soothe their consciences with by handing it down to their kids. Meanwhile tenants and the low waged for whom owning property is an impossible dream live lives of relentless insecurity with little way out in sight. And these tensions outweigh any theoretical unity amongst those whose income is not derived from capital.

That doesn't mean that homeowners are not working class, that's silly, but it's still real, has an immediate impact on people's lives and I suspect is one of the drivers of the generational conflict within the class that has emerged over the last few years. I don't know how we deal with that but it has to be acknowledged.

 

[kenny g]

It is not uncommon for individuals from privileged class backgrounds to misidentify their origins as working class. This phenomenon can be attributed to a number of factors, including the desire to fit in with certain social groups, a lack of awareness about one's own privilege, and the belief that one's personal experiences reflect the experiences of the working class as a whole.

One possible reason for this misidentification is the desire to fit in with certain social groups. Some individuals may feel that their privileged background puts them at a disadvantage in certain social circles, and may therefore claim a working class identity in order to fit in with these groups. This can be particularly true in social movements or political campaigns that are focused on issues affecting the working class, as individuals may feel pressure to align themselves with these causes in order to be seen as authentic or genuine.

Another reason for this misidentification may be a lack of awareness about one's own privilege. Some individuals may not fully understand the extent of their privilege or may not realize how their experiences and circumstances differ from those of the working class. This lack of awareness can lead to a misperception of one's own class identity, as individuals may believe that their personal experiences are representative of the experiences of the working class as a whole.

Finally, some individuals may misidentify their class origins due to the belief that their personal experiences reflect the experiences of the working class as a whole. This can be particularly true for individuals who have faced challenges or hardships in their lives

 

[ska invita]

Small bump - to carry on the conversation about limits of marx in the present day....
Interesting thing i just came across was a change in how people perceive themselves as Workers, and their work being central to their sense of self. This was arguably much more a thing in the past then it is now, where people move between jobs and careers and have better access to other things around which to think of themselves as. That's before getting to people who don't do paid work, who are retired, who enjoy their work etc etc

Workers Of The World Unite is still true of course, across all societies, but do perhaps people think of themselves less as Workers in the first place then they did within the oppression of the industrial revolution. Where industrial scale exploitation continues (deeply exhausting work excessive hours shit all pay etc) it becomes a more central sense of identity because there's little time or money for much else.

Is there something in that do you think?

 

[Humberto]

Small bump - to carry on the conversation about limits of marx in the present day....
Interesting thing i just came across was a change in how people perceive themselves as Workers, and their work being central to their sense of self. This was arguably much more a thing in the past then it is now, where people move between jobs and careers and have better access to other things around which to think of themselves as. That's before getting to people who don't do paid work, who are retired, who enjoy their work etc etc

Workers Of The World Unite is still true of course, across all societies, but do perhaps people think of themselves less as Workers in the first place then they did within the oppression of the industrials revolution. Where industrial scale exploitation continues (deeply exhausting work excessive hours shit all pay etc) it becomes a more central sense of identity because there's little time or money for much else.

Is there something in that do you think?

I guess you had 'sectors' (or towns maybe) based on coal or shipbuilding for example. What we tend to think is that class deference is more ingrained then than now, I would argue overall it's not. As a starter reckon.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Small bump - to carry on the conversation about limits of marx in the present day....
Interesting thing i just came across was a change in how people perceive themselves as Workers, and their work being central to their sense of self. This was arguably much more a thing in the past then it is now, where people move between jobs and careers and have better access to other things around which to think of themselves as. That's before getting to people who don't do paid work, who are retired, who enjoy their work etc etc

Workers Of The World Unite is still true of course, across all societies, but do perhaps people think of themselves less as Workers in the first place then they did within the oppression of the industrials revolution. Where industrial scale exploitation continues (deeply exhausting work excessive hours shit all pay etc) it becomes a more central sense of identity because there's little time or money for much else.

Is there something in that do you think?

One thing I've noticed amongst workers who aren't from a hard left understanding of life is the reason why they don't automatically hate the boss class (politics of Envy) is because their aspirations are limited to becoming that themselves and therefore don't generally see a problem with it.

 

[Serge Forward]

There is a tendency for many workers to think of themselves more as "consumers" first and foremost. This mindset clearly benefits the boss class.

 

[Brainaddict]

Small bump - to carry on the conversation about limits of marx in the present day....
Interesting thing i just came across was a change in how people perceive themselves as Workers, and their work being central to their sense of self. This was arguably much more a thing in the past then it is now, where people move between jobs and careers and have better access to other things around which to think of themselves as. That's before getting to people who don't do paid work, who are retired, who enjoy their work etc etc

Workers Of The World Unite is still true of course, across all societies, but do perhaps people think of themselves less as Workers in the first place then they did within the oppression of the industrial revolution. Where industrial scale exploitation continues (deeply exhausting work excessive hours shit all pay etc) it becomes a more central sense of identity because there's little time or money for much else.

Is there something in that do you think?

The great victory of the labour movement was to give people the time and spending money to think of themselves as something other than workers. And people love that.

 

[Brainaddict]

There is a tendency for many workers to think of themselves more as "consumers" first and foremost. This mindset clearly benefits the boss class.

It's all very well to say that, but even without the advertising industry workers would still want to better their material position, which means being able to buy more stuff. It's not just about spending for the sake of it though, I think you're trying to fit people into either 'worker' or 'consumer' now. The point is that with some extra spending money you can go out and buy records and they you get some DJ gear and you get into being a DJ (or whatever). That's not consumerism, it's just pursuing a fulfilling life, and it happens to involve some extra spending. It also makes it possible to think of yourself as 'part time DJ' rather than 'worker', and why the fuck wouldn't you? And then some leftist comes along and says 'You've been fooling yourself, you're just a slave to the system!' and they're like, 'No actually, I'm living a good life, and I don't want to own the means of production thanks, it would get in the way of being a DJ.'

I'm obviously piss-taking a bit, but this is more or less the losing battle the orthodox left have set themselves. Their early victories removed the ability for them to win what they thought would be the more advanced victories.

 

[Serge Forward]

I think you're reading a bit too much into my post. Nothing wrong with improving your material position or being better able to buy stuff. Neither would I say it's either worker or consumer, nor would I tell anyone they're fooling themselves and come out with "slave to the system" comments. If people think of themselves primarily as a consumer, then that involves individualised problems with individual solutions. If people think of themselves primarily as workers, then that's collective and requires collective solutions to our problems. Seeing ourselves as workers first is always going to be better.

 

[ska invita]

I think you're reading a bit too much into my post. Nothing wrong with improving your material position or being better able to buy stuff. Neither would I say it's either worker or consumer, nor would I tell anyone they're fooling themselves and come out with "slave to the system" comments. If people think of themselves primarily as a consumer, then that involves individualised problems with individual solutions. If people think of themselves primarily as workers, then that's collective and requires collective solutions to our problems. Seeing ourselves as workers first is always going to be better.

I dont see myself as either...work and consumption are are just two bits of life that i have to do, neither comes close to how i think about myself

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

as an aside you could argue the part time DJ owns the means of productions (mostly) for his work...

 

[Raheem]

as an aside you could argue the part time DJ owns the means of productions (mostly) for his work...

I don't think many Marxists would consider individual ownership to really count though.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I don't think many Marxists would consider individual ownership to really count though.

I don't think a mobile hairdresser who owns their own scissors or similarly one that rents a space in a salon can be compared with the salon owner who earns their money from the rent of property and doesn't even need to cut anybody's hair.

 

[ska invita]

this looks interesting

A Nation of Shopkeepers: The Unstoppable Rise of the Petty Bourgeoisie - Repeater Books

The petty bourgeoisie — the insecure class between the working class and the bourgeoisie — is hugely significant within global politics. Yet it remains something of a mystery. Initially identified as a powerful political force by theorists like Marx and Poulantzas, the petit-bourgeoisie was...

repeaterbooks.com

“A brilliant account of how and why “working class” and “middle class” have become such useless labels in the UK, and how we are actually divided.”
Danny Dorling

Jamie Woodcock, author of Marx at the Arcade
“A Nation of Shopkeepers asks important questions about class composition beyond the urban centres and “the left.” For those serious about making sense of class and the potential for transforming society today, Daniel Evans’ book makes an important contribution.”

Mike Savage, author of The Return of Inequality
“This is a vivid and passionate account of the renewal of class divisions in British society and the visceral forms they take. Anyone who doubts the relevance of contemporary class divides is encouraged to read this book.”

Walter Benn Michaels, author of The Beauty of a Social Problem
“A brilliantly readable exploration of the difficulties and the necessity of class analysis for any imaginably successful left politics.”

Tom Mills, author of The BBC: Myth of a Public Service
“A fascinating and accessible account of a social class that is too often neglected or misunderstood. This book powerfully makes the case for a sociologically informed analysis of the capitalist class structure today.”

Lisa McKenzie, author of Getting By
“This is a fantastically written romp filled with humour and pathos which takes us through the history and peculiarities of the British Class system and its connections to modern British politics.”

Alpkan Birelma
“An intriguing, very political, and unexpectedly personal book for those who are obsessed with class and the global failures of the left.”

Catherine Liu, author of Virtue Hoarders
“A book of theoretical and political clarity that will help all of us think through the political and economic striation of the petty bourgeoisie.”

Joe Glenton, author of Veteranhood
“A brilliant examination of the life and ideology of the petty bourgeoisie, the silent majority of ‘normal people’ whose safe, suburban, newbuild lifestyle belies their huge political influence and violent history.”

Mike Wayne, author of England’s Discontents
“Evans does a terrific job of helping us break out of classic class schemas that are either too abstract to help practical political interventions or have not kept up to date with the evolving and complex developments in the formation of classes in Britain. “

Tom Gann, New Socialist
“A rigorous and attentive book that will be crucial reading for the contemporary British left.”

 

[Pickman's model]

this looks interesting
View attachment 360895

A Nation of Shopkeepers: The Unstoppable Rise of the Petty Bourgeoisie - Repeater Books

The petty bourgeoisie — the insecure class between the working class and the bourgeoisie — is hugely significant within global politics. Yet it remains something of a mystery. Initially identified as a powerful political force by theorists like Marx and Poulantzas, the petit-bourgeoisie was...

repeaterbooks.com

“A brilliant account of how and why “working class” and “middle class” have become such useless labels in the UK, and how we are actually divided.”
Danny Dorling

Jamie Woodcock, author of Marx at the Arcade
“A Nation of Shopkeepers asks important questions about class composition beyond the urban centres and “the left.” For those serious about making sense of class and the potential for transforming society today, Daniel Evans’ book makes an important contribution.”

Mike Savage, author of The Return of Inequality
“This is a vivid and passionate account of the renewal of class divisions in British society and the visceral forms they take. Anyone who doubts the relevance of contemporary class divides is encouraged to read this book.”

Walter Benn Michaels, author of The Beauty of a Social Problem
“A brilliantly readable exploration of the difficulties and the necessity of class analysis for any imaginably successful left politics.”

Tom Mills, author of The BBC: Myth of a Public Service
“A fascinating and accessible account of a social class that is too often neglected or misunderstood. This book powerfully makes the case for a sociologically informed analysis of the capitalist class structure today.”

Lisa McKenzie, author of Getting By
“This is a fantastically written romp filled with humour and pathos which takes us through the history and peculiarities of the British Class system and its connections to modern British politics.”

Alpkan Birelma
“An intriguing, very political, and unexpectedly personal book for those who are obsessed with class and the global failures of the left.”

Catherine Liu, author of Virtue Hoarders
“A book of theoretical and political clarity that will help all of us think through the political and economic striation of the petty bourgeoisie.”

Joe Glenton, author of Veteranhood
“A brilliant examination of the life and ideology of the petty bourgeoisie, the silent majority of ‘normal people’ whose safe, suburban, newbuild lifestyle belies their huge political influence and violent history.”

Mike Wayne, author of England’s Discontents
“Evans does a terrific job of helping us break out of classic class schemas that are either too abstract to help practical political interventions or have not kept up to date with the evolving and complex developments in the formation of classes in Britain. “

Tom Gann, New Socialist
“A rigorous and attentive book that will be crucial reading for the contemporary British left.”

i never read the quotes on the back without checking in the acknowledgements to see whether the author knows them. you are less discriminating i see

 

[ska invita]

i never read the quotes on the back without checking in the acknowledgements to see whether the author knows them. you are less discriminating i see

looks good enough to read, not base a judgement on

 

[Pickman's model]

looks good enough to read, not base a judgement on

Ime most quotes recommending books, of the sort you base your this book looks interesting enough to read come from people cited in the acknowledgements. They are generally people the author knows. They are people who helped the author in some way. They are not impartial.

 

[ska invita]

Ime most quotes recommending books, of the sort you base your this book looks interesting enough to read come from people cited in the acknowledgements. They are generally people the author knows. They are people who helped the author in some way. They are not impartial.

it gives you an idea of what the book is about is all. very relevant to the conversation on this thread.

 

[seeformiles]

i never read the quotes on the back without checking in the acknowledgements to see whether the author knows them. you are less discriminating i see

I know a clique of poets - one of whom owns a small short run publishing business. When one of their number decides to release a collection of their verse, it is published under that imprint, another of the clique will review it in glowing terms (mentioning their own work in the process) and at each poetry meeting the rest buy the book. A process that repeats for each member with the result that few of these books are ever reviewed or scrutinised outside of the clique - and each member has several unsold boxes of their work to use as handy doorstops or to hand out at Xmas and birthday presents to the likes of me. Lucky me.

 

[Pickman's model]

it gives you an idea of what the book is about is all. very relevant to the conversation on this thread.

i have circled the bit in the link in your 1214 which gives you an idea of what the book is all about:



the other quotes are simply variations on 'read this book'

 

[ska invita]

i have circled the bit in the link in your 1214 which gives you an idea of what the book is all about:
View attachment 360901


the other quotes are simply variations on 'read this book'

 

[Pickman's model]

yeh that'll win you an argument. but not this one.

 

[ska invita]

yeh that'll win you an argument. but not this one.

you're arguing with yourself here and winning yourself that fabulous massive post count

 

[Pickman's model]

you're arguing with yourself here and winning yourself that fabulous massive post count

i'm not arguing with myself. you posted up a shedload of quotes as though they really spoke to the quality of the book - or was it someone else who made that comment about this looking good enough to read? which is a judgment, btw, concluding it looks good enough to read

 

[kabbes]

Earlier on in this thread, there was, essentially, a question as to why Marx hasn’t been updated, and a response that implied (or outright stated) that this wasn’t necessary. I disagree on both these fronts. Marx’s theory is a type (possibly the first?) of social models that are collectively known as “Elite Theory”. Many sociologists and social psychologists have contributed towards an attempt to take such theories forwards (e.g. Michels and Pareto). Subsequently, others have attempted to marry Elite Theory with other types of social theory. Some of these attempts are better than others, and all have holes. But so does the original.

One of the more academically successful attempts is Social Dominance Theory. This is a theory that seeks to investigate hierarchy directly, rather than through the mediating power of economics. Effectively, it accepts that economics is the weaponisation of politics, and so seeks to understand the politics (and political psychology) that drives the economics rather than vice versa. It maintains Marx’s ideas but reframes them in terms of the processes that act to enhance or attenuate hierarchy and thus reproduce power relations, rather than economic processes. Taking this approach allows the theory to identify the inter-related processes occurring at the individual, intergroup and system level.



There are things about this model I don’t like (including some things that I intuitively shy away from, such as SDO, which is too essentialist a concept for me). So I’m not trying to argue for SDT specifically. But I think where it’s helpful is that its reframing of the problem towards power structures and hierarchy rather than economics per se makes it a robust and, importantly, flexible model for applying to different social systems. Marxist ideas are built into it by design — Sidanius and Pratto explicitly discuss the important contribution of Marxism in their book about SDT. Relationship to the means of production is explicitly recognised and the implications included within all levels of the model. But models such as this one also recognise that contributors to the reproduction of power can be non-economic, unless you really want to stretch economics to definitionally encapsulate everything in human experience.

 

[ska invita]

Little overview piece from the author of that book Dan Evans here

The petty bourgeoisie is Britain’s most influential class

Labour’s new target demographic is an oft-invoked but poorly understood social class. Can Starmer appeal?

www.opendemocracy.net

this referenced in the piece looks interesting
The New Petty Bourgeoisie
Nicos Poulantzas

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/089692057900900105

 

[Brainaddict]

Little overview piece from the author of that book Dan Evans here

The petty bourgeoisie is Britain’s most influential class

Labour’s new target demographic is an oft-invoked but poorly understood social class. Can Starmer appeal?

www.opendemocracy.net

this referenced in the piece looks interesting
The New Petty Bourgeoisie
Nicos Poulantzas

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/089692057900900105

Really interesting, thanks, I had spotted the book out the corner of my eye but am now interested enough to obtain it.

The petty bourgeoisie are frequently appealed to by politicians – they’re often the ‘authentic’ people deemed to be living in the ‘red wall’ – but they are almost never named as such. Because of where they live and the fact that they sound working class (to the London commentariat, at least) they are generally treated as ‘working class conservatives’.

That’s partly to do with how class is understood in the UK. Overwhelmingly we think of class as a purely cultural phenomenon – not about what job you do or how much wealth you possess, but about what you eat or buy, or your affectations or accent. (This is why almost everyone thinks they are working class, despite all the evidence to the contrary.)

 

[Lurdan]

this referenced in the piece looks interesting
The New Petty Bourgeoisie
Nicos Poulantzas

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/089692057900900105

Available here
The New Petty Bourgeoisie - Anna’s Archive

Dan Evans, the author of the book, did a number of podcasts about it's arguments which are on Soundcloud
A Nation of Shopkeepers with Dan Evans - SoundCloud

 

[nogojones]

Available here
The New Petty Bourgeoisie - Anna’s Archive

Dan Evans, the author of the book, did a number of podcasts about it's arguments which are on Soundcloud
A Nation of Shopkeepers with Dan Evans - SoundCloud

Ah, Dan Evans from the Desolation Radio crew . He can be OK and during covid he was my only voice of rage against Welsh Labours incompetence. I'm not with him 100% on everything, but he's generally worth listening to.

 

[ska invita]

Ah, Dan Evans from the Desolation Radio crew . He can be OK and during covid he was my only voice of rage against Welsh Labours incompetence. I'm not with him 100% on everything, but he's generally worth listening to.

What are your disagreements, on what kind of grounds,? Good to know before going in..